Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

There are still far too many poor lost souls out there in viewing land who think PBS is somehow "alternative" to mainstream media.  I'm submitting this video link, so you can hear the bad news from someone who knows better, Bill Moyers. I don't know how many people I've talked to, who straight faced, tell me that they watch PBS, as if it's a truly subversive activity; usually the same dim bulbs who feel that voting Democrat accomplishes anything over voting Republican, in an entrenched duopoly.

http://www.bu.edu/buniverse/view/?v=20ZaW9PO

 

hucklejohn's picture
hucklejohn
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2008
Posts: 281
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Although I don't watch PBS I don't doubt your view that PBS is NOT a satisfactory alternative to the MSM. However, Bill Moyers is not exactly one of my favorites and listening to him for two hours would be WAY over the top.  At any rate if someone who has watched the video could summarize Moyers' points in just a few lines I would be grateful & would read it with interest.  

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
hucklejohn wrote:

Although I don't watch PBS I don't doubt your view that PBS is NOT a satisfactory alternative to the MSM. However, Bill Moyers is not exactly one of my favorites and listening to him for two hours would be WAY over the top.  At any rate if someone who has watched the video could summarize Moyers' points in just a few lines I would be grateful & would read it with interest.  

I understand. Moyers is best when he's on what amounts to (in PC circles) a rant. The first part of the video is all introduction. About a quarter of the way through, he launches his blast from the podium.  Hes' well rested and comes out with both fists swinging at the plutocracy/plutonomy.

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

AP,

Excellent! Thankyou for taking the time to put this up. I had a look about and found the transcript to the lecture.

I also found the full on-line copy of Howard Zinns two million sold book A People's History of the United States for those here to read, and to gain an insight into what all of the fuss is over the loss of this great man and historian was all about.

I also found a more accessible copy of the lecture on You Tube : -

Much Respect,

~ VF ~

 

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

VanityFox, Thanks so much for the transcript! I looked around, but couldn't find it! You're obviously more google-gifted.

Respect magnified and returnedSmile--J

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

AP,

I'll add my thanks for posting Moyers' speech.  He has been one of my heroes for a long time.  In this speech he is issuing a clarion call to upset the plutocracy that I have watched festering since that fateful night in November 1980 when RR was elected.  That night we as a people stepped into a twilight zone from which we are yet to emerge.  We will not emerge from this long night until we rise up as a people again to bring down the corporatocracy.  If we don't they will destroy us as a nation and a people for generations to come.  It's already happening.

Preparing is necessary, but we have to keep in mind the necessity of collective political action.

Now see, you got me all worked up.

Doug

hucklejohn's picture
hucklejohn
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2008
Posts: 281
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Thanks, VF, for your efforts.  I read the transcript of Moyers' speech.  He made some good points.  I know he comes at things  from the left side, and I from the right, but I realize now it's the banks and corporations and the financial elite all together lining up against us.  Here's a link:

http://usawatchdog.com/democrats-vs-republicans-its-you-vs-corporations/...

 

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Great find AP.

I watched the whole speech earlier, and though my bottom went numb, I really enjoyed it.  I am adamantly apolitical, but I have always been a consumer of the more scientific programing on PBS. And like Doug, I consider Bill Moyers a hero of mine as well. Though I rarely watched Moyer's on the TV, I listened to most of his interviews from his podcast (simulcast) and have learned a great deal from him and his guests over the years.

So his speech leaves me with this unanswered question; how do we return the power to the people again? The only viable solution that I see is to progressively 'starve' the corporations by developing local economies. Anybody have any other ideas that don't involve politics?

Thanks...Jeff

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

JAG

Quote:

So his speech leaves me with this unanswered question; how do we return the power to the people again? The only viable solution that I see is to progressively 'starve' the corporations by developing local economies. Anybody have any other ideas that don't involve politics?

The one action that I can think of, aside from developing local economies, that could starve the corporations is what we "prepers" are doing anyway; saving money, spending judiciously and not borrowing.  The corporations are economic entities, therefore, to hurt them you have to deprive them of their lifeblood, money.

Doug

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
Quote:

how do we return the power to the people again?

Very simple:  issue money that's an asset to the people rather than letting a few private corporations issue it as a debt to the masses so that they remain the most powerful entities on earth that fund all the other corporations and government. 

Sorry but Moyers is a relic.  While he and his "moral" colleagues reigned for decades in the power establishment, putting their faith in one side of it, nothing slowed or stopped the rise of the mega corporate state.  I admit he's a good preacher, I love his sentiment because we need much more of it, but why continue looking to guys who've proven to be failures for ideas for real change? 

Christopher H's picture
Christopher H
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 29 2009
Posts: 148
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
Quote:

how do we return the power to the people again?

 

Very simple:  issue money that's an asset to the people rather than letting a few private corporations issue it as a debt to the masses so that they remain the most powerful entities on earth that fund all the other corporations and government.

Sorry, but I find this solution wanting for extreme lack of details and plan -- and I've read and watched much of the stuff you've posted over at CSPER as well.  My main disagreement with it isn't whether or not it would work technically -- history tells us that it would, especially if practiced at a small enough scale (i.e. on the state/local rather than national level).  Rather, it's about the how do we implement it in the face of 1) a public that knows little if anything about the true story behind our money creation and, 2) a status quo ante power structure that is so heavily tilted against anything that might be a challenge to it -- and such a drastic change to the control over the money supply provides a striking example of such a challenge.

Note, I am not trying to discount the valuable efforts of those (such as yourself) trying to educate people about these realities.  However, at the same time, I cannot help but see it as trying to swim against a riptide as it sweeps you out to sea.  Concentrating on the money question with such a laser-like intensity, in my humble opinion, diverts attention away from the ways in which people can actively withdraw their cooperation with the system, and thus help to bring it down.  I'm talking about the subversive activities like growing your own food, growing not just your intellectual but your "trade" skill base (e.g. learning skills like basic carpentry, toolmaking and repair, blacksmithing, small engine repair, passive solar design and construction, etc.), and building ties within your local community.  In short, many of the things that Chris discussed in his "What Do I Do Now?" series. 

Perhaps most importantly, focusing on issues like control over the money supply, while providing valuable knowledge, can at the same time have an overall negative influence -- because they promote a sense of helplessness in the face of overwhelming odds.  On the opposite end, expanding your skill base and growing community, while they may not bring down the money system on their own, offer perhaps a more important benefit -- they help people to feel empowered and in control over their own lives, and their family's life.  The psychological dimension to these problems is often forgotten in all of the more esoteric disucssions, but as someone who has personally experienced job loss and coming to the brink of things falling apart for myself and my family as a result of a few bad choices as well as being captive to the greater forces at work, I can personally attest that that psychological dimension is extremely important -- perhaps even more important than the dimension of intellectual understanding itself.

JAG's picture
JAG
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 26 2008
Posts: 2492
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
strabes wrote:
Quote:

how do we return the power to the people again?

Very simple:  issue money that's an asset to the people rather than letting a few private corporations issue it as a debt to the masses so that they remain the most powerful entities on earth that fund all the other corporations and government. 

With respect  strabes, as much as your solution is designed to be supra-political, it would still require a political mechanism to put it into place and manage. From my perspective, I would rather stick my head in an unflushed toilet, than to waste my time with the political process. By definition, any politician with enough power to implement your solution, would also have enough power to abuse it for personal (and therefore corporate) gain. 

What we need is a way to keep corporate power in check, that cannot  be morphed into a political identity, or usurped by the political process in  anyway. I think the process must start by an individual striving to become as independent from the corporate economic system as possible. As this movement for independence grows into a community-wide collective effort, the freedom this approach nurtures will become increasing more attractive to the growing number of economically (and politically) impoverished citizens. Without this base of economic independence in the public mindset, any political movement (or politically achieved change in our system) is just an empty charade. 

I firmly believe that the individual holds all the power in our system. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. The manifestation of the American Dream of independence and freedom is the individual's responsibility to achieve and no one else's.

All the best....Jeff

plato1965's picture
plato1965
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 18 2009
Posts: 615
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

 

 +100 JAG !

 The entire Wizard of Oz philosophy.. you already have the power.. you simply don't realise it... yet.

 

 

Christopher H's picture
Christopher H
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 29 2009
Posts: 148
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

JAG wrote:

I firmly believe that the individual holds all the power in our system. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. The manifestation of the American Dream of independence and freedom is the individual's responsibility to achieve and no one else's.

However common a misconception it may be, I think that this "individualist" viewpoint borne out of the abundance of the fossil fuel age warps our understanding of the past.  The key to understanding the colonial and Revolutionary periods is that it was not a period of individual freedom, as much as it was a period of community freedom.  The overwhelming majority of people lived as members of their extended family first, physical local community a close second, and as an individual further down the list (unlike today, where we live as individuals first, members of the imagined community of "Americans" second, and members of a physical community somewhere below our affiliation with our favored professional sports team).  This had considerable ramifications for where these people saw their place in the world as compared to the lens where we view our own place in the world today.

Responsibility wasn't framed so much in terms of "achievement" (at least outside of the upper-crust of wealthy merchants in the North and large-scale planters in the South) as it was framed in terms of "obligations."  Your success as an independent yeoman farmer or small-scale craftsman depended upon how well you upheld those obligations as a member of your kin-and-community network.  This is largely due to the fact that if you needed to procure goods or services that were outside of your own household production capacity, you didn't rely upon the endless possibilities of the largely impersonal "market" as we do today -- you relied upon exchange-in-kind with members of your community or the mutually-reinforced obligations between the members of your community.  While it is certain that some measure of individual standing and esteem within the community was part of each person's calculus -- at the same time it was hardly the ONLY measure, especially as contrasted with the hyperindividualized society we live in today.  When the colonists rebelled against England, they were not doing so from a standpoint of the Crown's infringement upon their rights as individuals as much as against infringements on their rights as individual members of a free community.  The crown was imposing control over their community exchanges through taxation, control of the money supply (taxes and duties could only be paid by hard currency, which was in short supply), military occupation of parts of the colonies, and the way that these factors combined to prevent the colonists from living the free community life to which they had become accustomed through the extended period of benign neglect prior to the French and Indian War.

As a former formal student of history, and a current informal one -- I personally think that our understanding of this particular period in our history would serve us much better if we could shed the extreme emphasis on individualism that comes from our current period.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Catherine Austin Fitts--Former assistant director of Housing and Urban Development:

I posted this on another thread. If you're not familiar with Austin Fitts, you'll really appreciate this. She's amazing--describes perfectly what went wrong with "the system" --and some very practical prescriptions for the future. For example,  banks are using depositor's money and paying them a pittance in interest and then turning around and lending it out, short term, at onerous double digit  rates. There are simple neighbourhood work arounds. Strabes is correct that the money system has to be changed, but in the meantime, Fitts proposes some elegant local solutions to step outside of it, to the degree that that is possible.

 

...

...

...

...

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
Musings_from_the_Fringe wrote:

JAG wrote:

I firmly believe that the individual holds all the power in our system. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. The manifestation of the American Dream of independence and freedom is the individual's responsibility to achieve and no one else's.

 

Responsibility wasn't framed so much in terms of "achievement" (at least outside of the upper-crust of wealthy merchants in the North and large-scale planters in the South) as it was framed in terms of "obligations."  Your success as an independent yeoman farmer or small-scale craftsman depended upon how well you upheld those obligations as a member of your kin-and-community network.  This is largely due to the fact that if you needed to procure goods or services that were outside of your own household production capacity, you didn't rely upon the endless possibilities of the largely impersonal "market" as we do today -- you relied upon exchange-in-kind with members of your community or the mutually-reinforced obligations between the members of your community.  While it is certain that some measure of individual standing and esteem within the community was part of each person's calculus -- at the same time it was hardly the ONLY measure, especially as contrasted with the hyperindividualized society we live in today.  When the colonists rebelled against England, they were not doing so from a standpoint of the Crown's infringement upon their rights as individuals as much as against infringements on their rights as individual members of a free community.  The crown was imposing control over their community exchanges through taxation, control of the money supply (taxes and duties could only be paid by hard currency, which was in short supply), military occupation of parts of the colonies, and the way that these factors combined to prevent the colonists from living the free community life to which they had become accustomed through the extended period of benign neglect prior to the French and Indian War.

As a former formal student of history, and a current informal one -- I personally think that our understanding of this particular period in our history would serve us much better if we could shed the extreme emphasis on individualism that comes from our current period.

It's precisely the over emphasis on the individual that proves his undoing. The greatest strides forward, for the average man, from a purely financial point of view, came with the rise of union power,  post war. The Dale Carnegie school of self empowerment through positive thinking, hits a brick wall when the upper one per cent wield an enormously disproportionate amount of power.  This over hyped philsophy, begun by men like Carnegie and continued through shills who stump for corporate consumerism, via movements like "the Secret",  accomplish little more than atomization of what should be a strong aggregate counter force of affinity group power, if not actual union power.

Austin Fitts describes the corporate criminal process, working through the present system and calls into question the idea that people are by nature, completely selfish and that the system is simply reflecting that. You've provided the alternative reality in your amazing post above, Musings.  People are community oriented. There is some selfishness there, too, but the community acts as a check and balance. Economic activiy, confined to a smaller local sphere, where they would have to live out the consequences of their actions, be exposed to ridicule, shame, etc..would stand everyone in much better stead.  The local sphere could be international in scope, but complete transparency of transaction and interaction would be a base requirement.

Christopher H's picture
Christopher H
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 29 2009
Posts: 148
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

agitating prop wrote:

Economic activiy, confined to a smaller local sphere, where they would have to live out the consequences of their actions, be exposed to ridicule, shame, etc..would stand everyone in much better stead.  The local sphere could be international in scope, but complete transparency of transaction and interaction would be a base requirement.

First, thank you for the compliment, but I must say that I wholeheartedly disagree with the final point you made regarding expanding the local to the international.  The international (or anything beyond local / small regional, in my humble opinion) can never work the same way as the local, because it allows the very disengagement and anonymity that completely undermines the kinds of socioeconomic checks-and-balances that exist in a more localized sphere. 

Therein lies the conundrum of our modern world and replacement of the old real communities with imagined ones (to paraphrase Benedict Anderson).

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

This notion of the community is very important, and it’s true that there is considerable thrust towards discouraging this identity in favor of individualism.

Douglas Ruskoffs’ excellent book “Life Inc.” charts the trajectory of a corporatized society that values the individual over the community, people quite simply consume more as individuals when opportunity for co-operative behavior is discouraged. More housing, more cars, more everything. The American flight to the suburbs can be directly traced to the impact of the automobile, energy, and the push out of the cities into far flung communities where there is little opportunity for community building and sharing, instead forcing the re-purchasing of items that were often already available on a community basis.

The effect on durable goods consumption is marked, and many if not most of these flight initiatives where at least partially subsidized by large corporations (particularly GM) in post WWII days.

This marked increase in consumption dovetails nicely with the perceived identify of the American as rugged individualists. Contrast this with turn of the last century farming co-operatives wherein farmers shared expensive capital equipment rather than purchase their own (with accompanying low utilization rates). On the business side, the industrial revolutions’ high reliance on vertical integration provided intersecting philosophies that paid big dividends when applied to the marketing of consumer goods.

Labor unions and collective bargaining are but another means of leveraging community to achieve goals in fairness and efficiency, largely abandoned in the US under cover of the intellectual viewpoint that rugged individuals cannot benefit from such strategies, and counterbalanced by sustained demonization of ideologies, countries, and communities that do utilize collective bargaining.

Taken as a whole, the rate of consumption of individualized consumers, the deflation of power by discouraging collective bargaining, and the vertical integration of multi-nationals paints a picture of an ironclad lock on whatever remains of “free will”.

strabes's picture
strabes
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2009
Posts: 1032
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

people have been calling for what you guys are calling for (me too...I'm all about this stuff!) for decades.  I'm amazed when I go back and look at what Chomsky, Zinn, Nader, the 60's movement, etc. have been preaching forever.  it's exactly the stuff you guys are talking about.  and these guys described the problem better than we probably ever will, but nothing ever changed.  only a handful of people responded. 

why?  these brilliant leaders didn't understand the key issue...debt-based money creating the perpetual hamster wheel for 90% of the population.  the people can't substantively change within a system of monetary scarcity...you have to do what you have to do to feed your family.  in the last 50 years it appears only JFK understood it.  that's what needs to be changed.  then this individual, cultural, communal, social type of change can happen.  until then, most people will be just hamsters in the wheel (as we all testify to describing how it's impossible to wakeup family/friends).  the individual does not have the power in this system. 

 

 

 

Dogs_In_A_Pile's picture
Dogs_In_A_Pile
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 4 2009
Posts: 2606
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
JAG wrote:

I firmly believe that the individual holds all the power in our system. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. The manifestation of the American Dream of independence and freedom is the individual's responsibility to achieve and no one else's.

You da man.  Er, sheep...umm, sheep man, man sheep?

Seriously, you are absolutely correct.  The challenge is that most individuals aren't quite aware of the fact that they hold the power.  But they are slowly figuring it out.

Which I believe is the point of this site and why most of us are here, each doing our individual piece to help others meet the challenge

hucklejohn's picture
hucklejohn
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2008
Posts: 281
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Strabes, I believe you are right on!  History tells us it's the bankers who control the wealth, fund the wars (both sides), draw people into debt and control events and thereby control the people.  So the money system is the key! And as  you say so few people understand the money system.  Also, it's not like we have to invent a new system of money.  From earliest times Bible money is real money and real money is gold & silver!

hucklejohn's picture
hucklejohn
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2008
Posts: 281
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

agitating prop:  I too appreciate Catherine's material.  She is one of my favorites.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3200
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

I would suggest that individuals hold the power...if they use it collectively.  It is precisely the 'American dream' of individualism that has conned us into the incredibly inefficient lifestyles we lead.  Gone is the sense of community responsibility and shared sacrifice that really built this country and saved our bacon more than once.  That, I think, is what this site is trying to restore.

Doug 

Dogs_In_A_Pile wrote:
JAG wrote:

I firmly believe that the individual holds all the power in our system. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. The manifestation of the American Dream of independence and freedom is the individual's responsibility to achieve and no one else's.

You da man.  Er, sheep...umm, sheep man, man sheep?

Seriously, you are absolutely correct.  The challenge is that most individuals aren't quite aware of the fact that they hold the power.  But they are slowly figuring it out.

Which I believe is the point of this site and why most of us are here, each doing our individual piece to help others meet the challenge

DurangoKid's picture
DurangoKid
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 25 2008
Posts: 174
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

To hucklejohn

 

Well, gotta say I disagree with you on that.  Gold and silver have some serious drawbacks especially when there are almost 7 billion people who need money to conduct their affairs.  There's just not enough of it to go around.  Also, because it is scarse, it is subject to manipulation and hording.  Metalic money is attractive because the quantity is easier to control, but that just leads back to the manipulation and hording problem.  And no one wants to go back to a system where all debts are settled directly by the exchange of metal coins.  It's likely that receipts for the gold and silver, whether physical or virtual, would be the actual medium of exchange.  Again, to cheat the system would be easy.  Just print more receipts than you have in gold.  As long as the claims on your pile of gold are less than the rate of redemption of the receipts, who would know?  Worse still, if the economy grows, where does new money come from?  Without reforming the banking laws, bankers could just lend out gold receipts as if there were gold backing them up.  And of course, they would charge interest on those receipts, too.  What we need to keep in mind is that with fractional reserve lending, it doesn't matter what "backs" the currency.  The bankers will find a way around such limits.

A better form of money is one where a soverign power issues currency without paying interest on it to a private concern.  Banks would be prohibited from lending more currency than they actually have.  No more keeping one unit on reserve while nine more are out earning interest.  Henry I of England had just such a system with the tally stick.  It's nothing more than a stick of wood with notched carved along one edge to encode the value into it.  The stick is then split down the center with one half staying with Henry as a safeguard against conterfeit.  The other half is spent into the economy.  This system worked for 800 years.  It finally met its demise when the Bank of England was founded.  In fact, some of the shares in the BoE were purchased with tally sticks!  After centuries of attacks by money lenders, this system that worked so well died by act of Parliment at the behest of bankers.  In reality, anything can serve as money so long as people accept it as money and the quantity represents the value of the exchange of goods and services.  If you can pay your taxes with it, it's money.  The real trick with money is who controls it's issueance and quantity.  If private bankers are in control, it will serve them and them alone.  If a democratic government issues the currency, then the people will control their own money for their own benefit.  Keeping the banker's fingers out of the til also helps insure the people will control their government.

Switching to a gold backed currency solves nothing unless the system of banking is also reformed.  To use gold as a medium of exchange would require it to be drastically revalued.  By some estimates, as much as $30,000/oz.  This would make gold prohibitively expensive for applications in medicine, electronics, aerospace, ornament, etc.  The better solution is to remove the temptation to cheat the monetary system.  The legal counterfeiters are much more of a threat than the criminals.  Gold backed currency is just another libertarian fantasy.  Better to put away childish things.

 

SteveW's picture
SteveW
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 21 2010
Posts: 490
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

I'm suprised no-one has yet mentioned LETS systems of local, debt-free, commonly issued credit. They exist in many places all over the planet supporting the viability of local communities.

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

At 58:09 of the youtube video he says the following

This truly puzzles me. It's what I can't figure out about the conservative mindset. The Kochs I can understand: messianic Daddy Warbucks who can't imagine what life is like for people who aren't worth 21 billion dollars. But whatever happened to "compassionate conservatism?" The Affordable Care Act - whatever its flaws - extends health care coverage to over 40 million deprived Americans who would otherwise be uncovered.  What is it about these people - the Thomases, the secret donors, the privileged plutocrats on their side - that they can't embrace a little social justice where it counts - among everyday people struggling to get by in a dog-eat-dog world? Health care coverage could mean the difference between life and death for them. Mrs. Thomas is obviously doing okay; she no doubts takes at least a modest salary from that private slush fund working to undermine the health care reforms; her own husband is a government employee covered by a federal plan.  Why wouldn't she want people less fortunate than her to have a little security, too? She headquarters her organization at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, a reportedly Christian school aligned with the Moral Majority. How is it she's only about "Live and Let Live?" Have they never heard there the Old Time Religion of "Live and help live?"  Why would this cushioned, comfortable crowd, pious crowd resort to such despicable tactics as using secret money to try to turn public policy against their less fortunate neighbors, and in the process compromise the already tattered integrity of the United States Supreme Court?

I don't get it.

The knee-jerk conservative response to this might be something like the following....

This truly puzzles me.  It's what I can't figure out about the liberal mindset.  The Al Gore's of the world I can understand: messianic do as I say, not as I do limousine liberals, making millions off of carbon trading.  But whatever happened to "personal responsibility"?   The Affordable Care Act just uses the states power to TAKE a little from everyone that is currently covered by health insurance and to distribute it to 40 million currently deprived Americans.  What is it about these people - the Soros', the government unions, the privileged plutocrats on their side - that they feel they can use the FORCE of the state to take from those that have to give to those that don't.  Can't they see the moral destruction this causes?  Do the ends really justify the means and what about the unintended consequences?  Health care coverage for all, while a laudable goal, could be achieved in a far more equitable manner.   The current solution is so ignorant of economic reality, it almost defies comprehension.  When in the history of man has something desirable been given away for free and it not resulted in increased net costs or rationing?  Add in an extra 40 million users and it does not take a rocket scientist to see how well this will work for the 80% of the people that are reasonably happy with their current coverage.  As for energy taxes, Mr Gore and Nancy Pelosi are doing fine, they can pay extra to heat their multiple massive houses and travel in private jets, but why do they want to tax the rest of us into oblivion.  Do they hate regular people and believe that only they should be able to vacation by plane or drive a car?   Back to health care, can conservatives legitimately ask if the only way to deliver health care via a large central bureaucracy or do liberals really believe that they just want to euthanize all the people that they didn't want aborted in the first place?  Instead of demonizing conservatives character, is it possible that they are for a solution that does not use the FORCE of the state ( or at least uses far less ) and instead possibly brings some market mechanisms into health care so that the price inflation can be brought under contro for everyonel?

I don't get it.

You could almost do this to any part of his speech.  I know this is not going to be popular around here but I am sorry, an hour of this was almost too much too take. 

Although I agree with much of his criticism of the "conservatives", in this talk he comes off as such a partisian hack, it is hard to take him seriously.   How about a little balance?  It was like being lectured for an hour by Paul Krugman about how the solution to our debt problem is more debt.

NOTE:  It would be just as unpleasant to listen to some right wing hack like Gingrich or Hannity do the same thing.

agitating prop's picture
agitating prop
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: May 28 2009
Posts: 864
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Goes, Universal healthcare in Canada consumes 7% of GDP. In the U.S, it's 15%, and under Obama's ridiculous patchwork abomination, it's predicted to rise to 25% within a decade. It's ridiculous to assume that a truly universal pure govt medical insurance program is bound to get it wrong. Universal plans can dictate to suppliers, pharmacueticals, etc... rather than be dictated to, gouged. Why do you think Americans come to Canada to buy their prescriptions? Also, my doctor here in Canada has to make a darned good case for doing procedure xyz. Neither he, nor other health care specialists can easily churn fees.

Moyers is absolutely right. What is it about billionaires like Koch, that they find social justice and humane affordable treatment so repulsive? Not only do THEY  find it repulsive, they have managed to commandeer the media to the point that  many Americans  hold the same messed up beliefs. It's not left or right issue, it's a problem rooted in an inability to properly assess a situation, even when it's purely numerical.  I guess that's partly willfull ignorance, partly some kind of weird fundamental no pain no gain philosophy and part Dale Carnegie smack.  Then there are people who are just too dumb to be able to think.   I said it on the Beck thread and I'll reiterate it here--sometimes it's just an IQ issue.

  Even the "left" in the U.S.govt. are right wing, pro-corporate fascist, who would rather kill people overseas in warfare than do anything that resembles domestic "welfare".

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS
agitating prop wrote:

Goes, Universal healthcare in Canada consumes 7% of GDP. In the U.S, it's 15%, and under Obama's ridiculous patchwork abomination, it's predicted to rise to 25% within a decade. It's ridiculous to assume that a truly universal pure govt medical insurance program is bound to get it wrong. Universal plans can dictate to suppliers, pharmacueticals, etc... rather than be dictated to, gouged. Why do you think Americans come to Canada to buy their prescriptions? Also, where I am, doctors have to make a darned good case for doing procedure xyz. Neither he, nor other health care specialists can easily churn fees.

I agree that Obama care is an abomination.  It will certainly not decrease costs or improve care.  It will eventually add more people to the insurance rolls (if we are not broke as a country by then) but that was not sold as the primary justification.  Reminds me of Bush's WMD in Iraq.  The decision was already made and what was needed was a way to sell it to the general population.  Of course, unlike Iraq, Obama was never able to make the sale to the American public but than did not stop him and the Dems from shoving it down all of our throats.

Like many people, I would like to not worry about health care.  The thought of losing my job and then having one of my children get cancer is beyond upsetting.  However the rational part of me knows that nothing comes for free and therefore some sort of cost to benefit analysis must be done.  I also know if my child was sick, it would not be the rational part of me that would be making the decision.  Heath care is expensive and requires the time and energy of many highly trained professionals.  People don't want to hear this but some type of rationing must be done.   It can be done as it is now via health insurance, explicitly by the state, by cost, or some combination these.  What is best is very hard to say but it is clear to me that Obamacare is a major step in the wrong direction at the very wrong time.

I have two real problems with Obamacare.  One is any type of top down government mandate would be unconstitutional.  Of course in my opinion, most of what the federal government currently does is unconstitutional so I realize that this opinion does not matter for much.  I also do believe that this sort of mandate will be the final nail in the coffin to any sort of states sovereignty and as states would finally realize they are little more than legislative districts with no real power.

The second is that it does nothing to contain costs.  I agree that ignoring the constitutional issues, a central system that rations care and does not try to innovate much, could be done considerably cheaper than Obamacare.  I question whether medical innovation would be greatly constrained without a profit motive but maybe people might think it is a reasonable tradeoff. 

How about giving a less coercive system that is more compatible with traditional American values a try first.  How about high deductible insurance policies for all.  The government could fund medical savings accounts for low income earners to make of much of the gap between zero and the high deductible.  Incentivize cost management by ensuring that stake holders have something to gain or loss by making various health care decisions.   In this way no one ends up in the poor house because of a bad break medically but also insurance start doing what it really should be used for, sharing low probability catastrophic risks across a large cross section of the population.

agitating prop wrote:

Moyers is absolutely right. What is it about billionaires like Koch, that they find social justice and humane affordable treatment so repulsive? Not only do THEY  find it repulsive, they have managed to commandeer the media to the point that  many Americans  hold the same messed up beliefs. It's not left or right issue, it's a problem rooted in an inability to properly assess a situation, even when it's purely numerical.  I guess that's partly willfull ignorance, partly some kind of weird fundamental no pain no gain philosophy and part Dale Carnegie smack.  Then there are people who are just too dumb to be able to think.   I said it on the Beck thread and I'll reiterate it here--sometimes it's just an IQ issue.

It is hard to respond to paragraphs like this and not turn this thread into Beck 2.  More Koch boogymen crap and derogatory references to others intelligence.   Depressing...

I have no idea why the Kochs have funded these various organizations but I certainly would not be surprised if it was for self interested reasons.  I am also sure that the government unions are funding candidates based on altruism.  Haven't the Koch's been funding "right wing" organizations for decades?   Why did the Tea Party take off right now instead of 10 years ago?  Could it be that some conservatives finally noticed that their own so-called guy (Bush) was spending more than the big spending Democrats and then the final straw was that he decided to bailout the very institutions that largely caused the economic meltdown?  No, clearly in your (and many liberals) minds, it all comes down to some rich guys that are funding a propaganda organization for morons!

This is what I personally find hardest to take from liberals.  It's is not their simple good intentions, their limousine liberal hypocrisy, their ignorance of cause and effect, their ignorance of unintended consequences, not even their cry of racism to those that disagree,...  No what really gets me is the arrogance.  Listen to Moyer's talk about his ideas and he acts like the only way that you can disagree with him is if you just don't understand.  I have heard that a lot since the election from progressives and they never seem to want to believe that many people are just not interested in what they are selling.

 

Christopher H's picture
Christopher H
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: May 29 2009
Posts: 148
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Goes211 wrote:

How about giving a less coercive system that is more compatible with traditional American values a try first.  How about high deductible insurance policies for all.  The government could fund medical savings accounts for low income earners to make of much of the gap between zero and the high deductible.  Incentivize cost management by ensuring that stake holders have something to gain or loss by making various health care decisions.   In this way no one ends up in the poor house because of a bad break medically but also insurance start doing what it really should be used for, sharing low probability catastrophic risks across a large cross section of the population.

At the risk of diverting this thread back away from a path toward "Beck II", I'd like to suggest to you some of the writings of Charles Hugh Smith on health care at his blog, http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html.  You'll have to do a search for the specific articles, as there have been several over the past months, but he approaches the issue from a decidedly non-partisan POV.

One recommendation he had was that we may need to do away with insurance altogether -- that without the pool of "free money" for all interested parties, health care would become much more rationed as a matter of necessity.  In another piece, he wrote of the necessity of a system based upon triage principles in the face of economic and resource declines.  For those who would decry it as "rationing," he pointed out that we clearly have a system of rationing right now, perhaps organized around just about the most non-rational principle imaginable -- the ability to pay.  According to Smith (and I happen to agree with him here), in an ideal system rationing would place the more "productive" and "needed" members of society first -- working age adults, especially those raising children -- while it would put many of the aged and infirm further toward the back of the line.  Undoubtedly many of these people would die from neglect of care, a fact that many will decry as inhumane.  However, I believe that Smith has a very good point -- that it is much more inhumane when we have the resources to prevent a parent of small children from succombing to a treatable illness, but we instead divert vast amounts of resources toward the final 1-2 years of life for many of our seniors.

In any event, although I certainly disagree with many things you write on these boards, I think that Charles Hugh Smith's views on health care may be one of those instances in which right and left can find some relative agreement free of the encumbrance of ideology.

On a final note, one of the things that has infuriated me about the whole "health care debate" is the way in which the links between our diet and health care are never discussed at the policy level.  If we would stop subsidizing junk food and instead promote good food (as well as participating in the active production of one's own food through gardening), many of our national health issues surrounding heart disease and diabetes would virtually disappear.

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

Musings,

I am sorry to hear that you regularly disagree with me ( not really surprising to me because I rarely seem to find myself in total agreement with others ) but in this case I think we very much agree.  I am a huge fan of Charles Hugh Smith and thought Survival+ was one of the best books I have read critiquing many aspects of our current system.  I can't remember his exact thoughts on health care but I don't remember them being that far from my own.

Cheers!

Vanityfox451's picture
Vanityfox451
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 28 2008
Posts: 1636
Re: Bill Moyers Takes Gloves Off. Smash mouths PBS

I've walked away from this site for a couple of days, leaving what I was going to post below at the time on hold. As can be noted, in just 29 posts, this thread has gone to hell. I live in hope that this post may put it back on track.

The United Kingdom is also going to hell. A professionally made documentary film I caught on Channel 4 here last Thursday evening, tells of a UK national deficit that is sitting at an astounding £4, 800, 000, 000, 000 - £4.8 trillion - Four Point Eight Trillion Pounds. No matter which way I write that figure, it won't blur the edges of the amount, when a realisation emerges that strikes at the heart of the issue, when £50 notes are stacked, one on top of the other, over 6,500 miles high - with a comparison that if every building in the United Kingdom were sold, it would only raise £3.5 Trillion of the net, leaving £1 Trillion remaining left to pay - that it equates to every man, woman and child, owing, at this present time, £77,000, and that for all of those yet to be, will be born into an absolutely unpayable debt, that will strangle-hold them, their children and their children's children, even if we had 3 planet earth's to pillage resource from over the next three to four decades. Frankly, the lights are literally going to go out across the UK, and soon ...

As Doug wrote above of the 1980 beginning's to the twilight zone, with Ronald Reagan coming to power, that over the passage of time became the United States of America of today, I must therefore draw the greatest of attention to his twin sister Margaret Thatcher, across the pond, in the United Kingdom. These two have reckoned wrought in back-sliding human success in perpetuity, as much indeed as the supposed left leading Tony Blair did in his era, or in the here and now, with the neither paradigm placeable Barack Obama, at least as my own idea of puppet mascot's fitting for something to punch. None of the above have offered a single factual, representable, exponential understanding of what they were a part of creating. By the perpetual party wars in selling to the public the sweet sugared pill of illusion, each child born since 1970 in my opinion, has a 1 in 3 chance of surviving past 2020 directly because of it.

Both Reagan and Thatcher have been afflicted by alzheimer's disease - one gone, and the other mentally decaying from its rigour. I would not wish this condition upon even my worst of enemies, yet I sense that it is her most fitting self-destruction, and that it will become even more obvious sooner, rather than later, and one that many here will change in their stance over time in fleeting defence of their fading memory, by defending me. That what I have to say of the bumbling and inadequate caricature; his Presidential in look, but not leading attribute; his spewing of impotent rhetoric, while as apparent leading captain of industry. No, I cannot give any better for Ronald Reagan either, no matter the pomp and circumstance of his state funeral; no matter how much he could make the public laugh. The perfect actor for the job then. A failed B-movie actor. In more recent times Bush the younger. Proving that corporate money could promote a chimpanzee to head the presidential office, if enough money can be thrown at its cause; a circus parade sitcom soap opera; who needs Dallas or Dynasty when almost over-night, a nobody becomes a somebody, voted for, and elected by, an ever more impotent populous.

With the passing of Howard Zinn in January of this year, he is yet another silenced voice that I'm finding more and more difficult to gain replacement for in these generation's that have preceded him. As we're already aware, the corporatocracy is immortal; the individual a mere mortal; and nothing dissuades more than from your own decay; and more, when you realise that Howard Zinn saw no exception but to continue lecturing, at eighty-seven years old, even expecting to speak at a lecture on the day of his death. I cannot see anyone who has the stature and presence to fill his boots, and this trouble's me more than many will ever know.

The eighty-one year old Noam Chomsky is another. I've read nearly every one of his books this year alone. He is prolific, and driven. When taking on board the style and depth of his message, you realise the sheer and absolute power of the global horror that he is expressing, and you wonder quite why he continues with what appears to be a smaller and smaller audience taking notes. It doesn't seem so long ago that a generation venerated and accepted. Now it appears, this present generation of late twenty-somethings have the steepest learning-curve yet. Still more insurmountable while living and breathing in a country of political stricture that causes even those discerning enough to stop momentarily, and question themselves a second time, in that they may be caught in the clever grasp of the manipulative media left over right paradigm propaganda.

Seventy-one year old Australian born John Pilger is yet another. I've watched every documentary he's made over his forty year career that I could find on line since, and almost every book that he has written, and hunted out those no-longer in print volumes. His message is impotent and useless if it is not acted upon by people just like you and I.

The idea then that we can starve this beast by not being a part of it, and settle our affairs into place by becoming self-sufficient as though we will no-longer be effected by it, is as ineffective as buying our gas from another supplier if we do not agree in the immorality of how the product was procured and brought to market. By simply looking out from my window at the traffic and the lifestyle of the people around me here, there is less than one tenth of a single percentile that would effect change at this time, with such a small amount of people unplugging themselves from the system.

The idea that Zinn, Chomsky or Pilger are seen as ineffectual with the message of their era, and that they somehow failed, is to me the comedy that those born in the eighties were the first to find the clitoris and the female orgasm. The nature of humanity is set by a multi-milenia of human history, based on greed and ownership via theft. That the Zinn, Chomsky and Pilger of their day could then be seen as stating the self same message in the present and as of the past, with the same issue's, only magnified, I sense then that with inaction from the present populous as of the past, the present crop will remain as ineffectual as those of the past.

Lets look at a clear headed example of the present from a film that should have been posted here rather than having a new thread made of it. This by Catherine Austin Fitts : -

We can talk and talk here on this forum, and we can also dream. If you want change however, some sacrifice is in order. It first comes from study, and if you don't have time, don't be surprised if someone else's idea of your future will be made for you. Never then express the idea that you live in a world built upon a foundation of altruism. By the very act of holing up some-place else to await the magnitude of this coming shit-storm, by your very survival you can state that you protected you and yours, but were alive to witness the deaths of millions surrounding you, because of a lack of momentum to act on what you know is right, even when it would be almost if not totally impossible to achieve. That, in itself, would be the act of one operating with something of a conscience; something of the selfless; something of the altruist.

~ VF ~

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments